Re: CAD experiment entry
Posted by
timgoldstein
on 2010-12-16 15:17:46 UTC
--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "William Thomas" <wthomas@...> wrote:
No disagreement that there are many ways to skin a cat and when it is all done and said you have a skinned cat.
One of the big things I had to learn when moving from a hobbyist to a commercial manufacturer is what to worry about changed. As other have mentioned, the scrap is nothing in the overall scheme of things. But labor is expensive. Changing from the collect chuck we normally run with to a standard chuck takes about 20 minutes. That is 20 minutes of lost productivity and labor cost. Changing back is another 20 minutes. Again, another lost in productivity and increase in cost. Time is money and scrap is cheap.
Let me give an example. I just bought $350 in round steel that will become non-round Tuff Nuts with live tooling in the lathe. That $350 in stock will become about $12,000 at retail in products. I know seems outrageous, but we also sell wholesale to dealers, have to pay for labor to machine, debur, tumble, black oxide, and package in addition to the cost of the machine, the electricity, coolant, tools, machine service, etc, etc. So the material cost is only a fraction. If I could save 50% in material by changing to square stock I save $175. 50% is unrealistic. Maybe now everyone can see when they are looking in the wrong direction as the square solutions only have $175 improvement and then only if they cost the exact same to implement. They don't. They are all more expensive processes to try and save $175. Remember the old adage, Penney wise and pound foolish. Fits here.
Bottom line hobbyist or commercial is you have to look at the resources you have and what you need to accomplish. Then you come up with the best way based on your skills and resources to accomplish the task needed. For every situation and every person the final approach can be vastly different. I am simply relating what is working for me to illustrate how we approach making this type of part in a commercial (meaning profit driven) setting. Live tooling in a lathe is a very rare approach. It is growing, but heck it cost almost $30,000 added to the cost of an already expensive machine. The point is, this is how I chose to use it and I am VERY satisfied with the ROI I am getting from this investment using the technique I am using. Based on almost 6 years of real world use of this this very rare system, I am sharing what I learned at a very high cost.
I have no desire to debate and am not asking anyone that has not actually bought, setup, programmed or run one of these tools what I should do. I am just trying to help hobbyist understand some industrial approaches. If you want to be a hobbyist worry about scrap. If you want to be a profitable business owner, you figure out what to worry about and the in the USA labor is the big nut to crack.
Funny thing is I was talking to another VERY experienced commercial business owner this morning about CCED. His comment is, when you share the techniques and methods that we use profitably for years the hobby guys just want to argue about it. So he walked away and we are all the poorer for it. I learned a lot from him when he was here. I am understanding his position more and more.
Tim Goldstein
A2Z Corp
A2Z CNC division
3955 S Mariposa St
Englewood CO 80110
720 833-9300
Toll Free 877 754-7465
www.A2ZCorp.us/store
USA made accessories for desktop mills & lathes.
Specialized tools for the jewelry industry.
>Bill,
> Hi Tim and All:
> THANKS FOR THE IMPUT OF THE CAD EXPERIMENT
> Tim, why don't you use a set of custom soft jaws and machine the nuts out of rectangle bars? This would eliminate the scrap from round to rectangle and half your milling with the live tools. Just a little harder on the start of cutoff.
> Note: I recently did this to taper turn some octagon gun barrels and it works!!!
> GOD'S BLESSINGS
>
> Bill Thomas
No disagreement that there are many ways to skin a cat and when it is all done and said you have a skinned cat.
One of the big things I had to learn when moving from a hobbyist to a commercial manufacturer is what to worry about changed. As other have mentioned, the scrap is nothing in the overall scheme of things. But labor is expensive. Changing from the collect chuck we normally run with to a standard chuck takes about 20 minutes. That is 20 minutes of lost productivity and labor cost. Changing back is another 20 minutes. Again, another lost in productivity and increase in cost. Time is money and scrap is cheap.
Let me give an example. I just bought $350 in round steel that will become non-round Tuff Nuts with live tooling in the lathe. That $350 in stock will become about $12,000 at retail in products. I know seems outrageous, but we also sell wholesale to dealers, have to pay for labor to machine, debur, tumble, black oxide, and package in addition to the cost of the machine, the electricity, coolant, tools, machine service, etc, etc. So the material cost is only a fraction. If I could save 50% in material by changing to square stock I save $175. 50% is unrealistic. Maybe now everyone can see when they are looking in the wrong direction as the square solutions only have $175 improvement and then only if they cost the exact same to implement. They don't. They are all more expensive processes to try and save $175. Remember the old adage, Penney wise and pound foolish. Fits here.
Bottom line hobbyist or commercial is you have to look at the resources you have and what you need to accomplish. Then you come up with the best way based on your skills and resources to accomplish the task needed. For every situation and every person the final approach can be vastly different. I am simply relating what is working for me to illustrate how we approach making this type of part in a commercial (meaning profit driven) setting. Live tooling in a lathe is a very rare approach. It is growing, but heck it cost almost $30,000 added to the cost of an already expensive machine. The point is, this is how I chose to use it and I am VERY satisfied with the ROI I am getting from this investment using the technique I am using. Based on almost 6 years of real world use of this this very rare system, I am sharing what I learned at a very high cost.
I have no desire to debate and am not asking anyone that has not actually bought, setup, programmed or run one of these tools what I should do. I am just trying to help hobbyist understand some industrial approaches. If you want to be a hobbyist worry about scrap. If you want to be a profitable business owner, you figure out what to worry about and the in the USA labor is the big nut to crack.
Funny thing is I was talking to another VERY experienced commercial business owner this morning about CCED. His comment is, when you share the techniques and methods that we use profitably for years the hobby guys just want to argue about it. So he walked away and we are all the poorer for it. I learned a lot from him when he was here. I am understanding his position more and more.
Tim Goldstein
A2Z Corp
A2Z CNC division
3955 S Mariposa St
Englewood CO 80110
720 833-9300
Toll Free 877 754-7465
www.A2ZCorp.us/store
USA made accessories for desktop mills & lathes.
Specialized tools for the jewelry industry.
Discussion Thread
timgoldstein
2010-12-12 22:14:31 UTC
CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 03:34:22 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Jamie Cunningham
2010-12-13 03:56:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 05:24:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 05:42:10 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 06:09:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment idea
Kevin Martin
2010-12-13 07:04:00 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Stephen Wille Padnos
2010-12-13 07:06:33 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 07:46:25 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
R.L. Wurdack
2010-12-13 07:54:59 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 08:17:23 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 08:53:42 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 09:00:17 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Tim Goldstein
2010-12-13 09:02:56 UTC
Re: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
Roland Jollivet
2010-12-13 09:06:29 UTC
[CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment idea
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 09:17:38 UTC
Re: CAD experiment idea
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 12:45:45 UTC
CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 12:49:59 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 13:29:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 15:16:30 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 15:34:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 15:39:54 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-13 16:00:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 16:02:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 16:06:50 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 16:25:27 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Michael Fagan
2010-12-13 17:05:04 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 17:11:24 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
R.L. Wurdack
2010-12-13 17:24:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-13 17:29:58 UTC
Re: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 18:17:03 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Homann
2010-12-13 18:48:08 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Andy Wander
2010-12-13 18:50:57 UTC
RE: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-13 23:23:56 UTC
[CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:00:00 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:17:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:43:39 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 05:57:27 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 08:44:40 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 09:25:58 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
H & J Johnson
2010-12-14 09:27:58 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 10:12:05 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 12:45:23 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-14 13:39:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 15:08:47 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Reilley
2010-12-14 15:25:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 16:57:56 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Brian Worth
2010-12-14 21:49:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Peter Homann
2010-12-14 22:03:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-14 22:46:21 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
William Thomas
2010-12-15 04:27:56 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-15 04:40:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 05:20:51 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 06:23:27 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 06:33:51 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Mike Payson
2010-12-15 06:54:41 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 07:00:39 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 07:38:42 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Swiss
2010-12-15 08:26:31 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
CNC 6-axis Designs
2010-12-15 08:29:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-15 10:45:31 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 17:05:59 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Kevin Martin
2010-12-15 20:24:24 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 21:16:03 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-15 21:17:14 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 08:37:58 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 09:07:45 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-16 10:08:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 14:34:40 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 15:17:46 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 16:28:39 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 16:52:14 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
Ron Thompson
2010-12-16 16:57:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 20:45:14 UTC
Re: CAD experiment entry
William Thomas
2010-12-16 21:23:48 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: CAD experiment entry
timgoldstein
2010-12-16 22:13:34 UTC
EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Stephen Wille Padnos
2010-12-17 05:28:36 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 09:24:52 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 09:31:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 10:06:09 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jeffrey T. Birt
2010-12-17 10:28:06 UTC
RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
samcoinc2001
2010-12-17 11:05:31 UTC
EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry
Jon Elson
2010-12-17 19:57:50 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] EMC, Was Re: CAD experiment entry